[Minor]
In section 4.1 there is mention of a GWD repository. Does this still exist? Is it used? I think we need a reference to 
what it means (www.ogf.org/repository) and make sure it is used. Otherwise delete.

In section 4.1 second paragraph:
'not to force completion from GWD to GFD within 12 months' Should it not be 'GFD submission'?

4.2: 'Grid Working Documents' has already been abbreviated to GWD and should be here.

4.3.1. Area Directors is abbreviated to AD here although 'Area Director' has already been used. Abbreviate on first 
mention (and put in glossary?) and then use abbreviation consistently throughout. Multiple occurances.

4.4 Second paragrpah
Definition of GFSG abbreviation even though the abbreviation has already been used.

4.4.1. Steps 4 & 7: Should the role of the 'Shepherd' in the GFSG review be explicitly mentioned?

[Major]
4.5 Why are our recommendations called 'Gird Recommendations'? I though these were always 'Full Recommendations' or just
 'Recommendations' (as opposed to Proposed Recommendations).

4.5.3. Paragraph on Errata
'no changes that would impact interoperability are permissible'
Big concerns with this. Most changes done at this stage are to improve interoperability - as a result of experience. 
This may mean clarifying/correcting the semantics/API/XML in the previous document. A strict interpretation is that this
 will mean automatic additional public comment. I don't see this as being practical.
This text seems as odds with that ini section 8.

Following paragraph - what is meant by 'the development effort'? Of the document, the implementations derivied from the 
document. This to me is ambiguous.

12. 3rd parargraph
OGF Steering Group - I assume you mean GFSG. GFSG has been used everywhere else in the document.